Read about Government Corruption and how Gaslighting was used against the author of this story, including fifteen other Australian citizens who stumbled upon the truth concerning Telstra's ailing copper wire network. Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the more profound exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime and international fraud against the government, which present significant challenges.
Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud.
Prologue
The following are six carefully selected examples from a comprehensive collection of one hundred fifty-one (151) mini-stories, all providing compelling evidence for our investigations into corruption within government agencies. Each story illustrates a unique aspect of this pervasive issue, shedding light on the intricacies of misconduct and accountability. For those interested in exploring further, the remaining one hundred forty-five (145) mini-stories are available for download in our Evidence File-1 / Evidence-File-2, each filled with insightful narratives that underscore the urgency of addressing these critical concerns.
Delve into the intricate realm of corruption in government-endorsed arbitrations involving Telstra:
1. **Government Corruption - Gaslighting** www.absentjustice.com/tampering-with-evidence/government-corruption--gaslighting. Explore: This insightful article examines the troubling intersection of government corruption and psychological manipulation, specifically through the lens of the Julian Assange case. It uncovers a complex narrative of control, deceit, and the significant power dynamics at play in the arbitrations. Who truly held the reins during these crucial proceedings?
2. **Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete** www.absentjustice.com/manipulating-the-regulator/who-was-controlling-the-arbitrations-?Corrupt: This section highlights how certain government practices intensify issues of inequality, poverty, social division, and environmental degradation. It emphasizes the urgency of exposing corruption and demanding accountability from those in power to foster a fairer society.
3. **Contact - Government Corruption** www.absentjustice.com/contact--government-corruptionGet: Stay connected and informed about pressing government corruption issues with Absent Justice. We invite you to reach out and become an active participant in our crucial fight for transparency and accountability in governance.
4. **Chapter 4 Government spying** www.absentjustice.com/australian-federal-police-investigations-1/afp-investigation-2/chapter--4-government-spying. Explore: In this compelling chapter, readers are invited to uncover shocking revelations about government surveillance as detailed in AFP Investigation 2. This investigation seeks to shine a light on the dark side of government spying, underscoring the imperative for transparency and the protection of civil liberties.
5. **Chapter 3 Dishonestly using corrupt government influence** www.absentjustice.com/manipulating-the-regulator/legal-bullying-in-arbitration/chapter-3-dishonestly-using-corrupt-government-influence: Dive into Chapter 3 of 'Tampering with Evidence' to reveal unsettling truths about the manipulation and exploitation of government influence for corrupt purposes. This chapter on Absent Justice takes a hard look at how systemic dishonesty undermines public trust.
6. **Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues** www.absentjustice.com/price-waterhouse-coopers-deloitte/chapter-1-the-collusion-continues: Initiate your journey into the dark underbelly of ongoing collusion in Chapter 1 of 'Unconscionable Conduct.' Here, Absent Justice meticulously uncovers a web of continuous unethical practices, shedding light on the pervasive complicity within institutions.
Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. You can verify our story by using this method and following the file numbers. We could not have successfully composed this publication or my website, absentjustice.com, without these exhibits to prove our story. The corruption and injustices perpetrated against the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) by those in various administrative roles, under the umbrella of legally administered arbitrations, are so overwhelming that we would have lost clarity had we placed all in one manuscript. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.
It is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:
One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard dated 27 February 1998 shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.
It is essential we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.
Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased during a government-endorsed arbitration process (see Senate Evidence File No/61).
I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra, before Ericsson purchased Lane? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson's purchase of Lanes during the COT arbitration process?
The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that these same subscribers visit my website absentjustice.com, where they can see for themselves that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.
If the hackers mentioned on our webpage WikiLeaks exposing the truth were Julian Assange and his friend, and it likely was them, then why hasn't the Australian Government understood what the hackers wanted to share with us COT cases? He did not ask for payment in sharing what he and his friends had uncovered concerning Telstra’s ailing copper wire network, as would have been the case if he had been a common criminal. He wanted us to have a fair arbitration hearing, and that was all. Had we used the offer information, then the arbitrator would have been compelled to demand that Telstra fix its degraded Ericsson exchange equipment, instead of bringing down his findings, which did not disclose the true extent of the corroded network that was destroying the COT cases' businesses and numerous other telephone-dependent businesses throughout Australia.
My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned since 1992 through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra. This story commenced in April 1988 and is still, in 2025, being ignored by the government.
Introduction
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found' when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.
Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using dubious strategies, such as intercepting relevant faxes, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), destroying documentary evidence, and fabricating evidence.
The arbitrator ignored the central points of our claim at arbitration, and no amount of effort to address these points bore any fruit. In the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies—Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers)—failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.
Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.
As most telephone users would think, each of the COT members assumed their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout our arbitrations and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone, and the system was supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?
And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is illegal. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is prohibited (see Tampering with Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.
How can one craft a meticulously detailed and accurate narrative of the intricate events that unfolded during various arbitrations sanctioned by the Australian Government? The challenge is compounded by the necessity to eschew reliance on exculpatory evidence, which I have regrettably resorted to to lend credibility to my account. What strategic methodologies can an author employ to firmly substantiate claims, while carefully sidestepping legal repercussions, regarding the covert actions of government public servants? These individuals are alleged to have clandestinely provided privileged information to the telecommunications carrier owned by the Australian Government, which functions as the defendant in this case. Moreover, it raises the pressing question: Did they intentionally withhold crucial evidence from the claimant, thereby compromising the integrity of the arbitration process?
How can we effectively unveil the troubling practices of the regulatory body AUSTEL, which is now known as ACMA? It is crucial to highlight a deeply concerning revelation: the defendants allegedly resorted to using fabricated witness statements to assert that the arbitration testing complied with all mandatory government standards and specifications. Instead of confronting these serious violations head-on and demanding a comprehensive re-examination of the flawed arbitration tests—tests that had been denounced explicitly as grossly defective in two crucial letters addressed to Telstra's arbitration defense unit, Peter Gamble and Steve Black on October 11 and November 16 1994, as shown in Exhibits 23-E and 23-F Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G).
Despite the two letters indicating that Telstra's SVT testing at my business was severely inadequate, no further testing of my business lines occurred until November 2002. This was eight years after the initial failure of the SVT testing and ten months after I was forced to sell my holiday camp. Since the conclusion of my arbitration on May 11, 1995, no one had tested my service lines. I assume this was because if Telstra and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman had conducted further tests, they would have discovered that my telephone problems still impacted my business eight years later → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).
The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal? What convinced the arbitrator to change the findings in the DMR & Lane report?
I reiterate from the above statement that, to gain public trust in my story on absentjustice.com, I had no choice but to gather and present my evidence while disclosing what I share in the public's interest.
By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps provided me the ability to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,
How do you expose that these defendants, during the arbitration process—which was once under government ownership—used sophisticated equipment linked to their network to covertly screen faxed documents leaving your office, storing sensitive materials without your knowledge or consent, only to redirect them to their rightful destination—a route shrouded in secrecy?
Were the defendants using this intercepted material to bolster their defence during arbitration, undermining the claimants' rights?
Given the circumstances, venturing into the online sphere to share my story became my only viable option for exploring and exposing these critical issues between Chapters 1 and 12.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
After Mr Anderson completed his testing on 27 April, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:
“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)
Clicking on the TF200 telephone below will show that a second photo I received under FOI was taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming that the note I placed on it was pretty clean when it was received at Telstra. See Open Letter File No/37 exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, who smothered the grease over the front of the telephone after it left my business, and who poured the sticky beer residue into the same now dirty telephone, insinuating I was a hopeless drunk?
This report raises several questions. When the phone left my office, it was quite clean. Why did it arrive at the laboratory in such a filthy state? How did the beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone and why? If the addition of beer was not deliberate, how did it get inside the phone? The main aim of Telstra’s submitted report, used as evidence, was to prove that Telstra’s service was not at fault.
As soon as I read this beer-in-the-phone report, I requested the arbitrator, asking for a copy of all the laboratory technicians' handwritten notes so he could see how Telstra had arrived at their conclusion. I had appointed my forensic document researcher to look over the documents when I received them, and he provided me with his CV credentials and signed a confidentiality agreement stating he would not disclose his findings to anyone outside of the arbitration procedure. Although I passed all this information on to the arbitrator, the only response I received from the arbitrator and Telstra was a duplicate copy of the report I had already received as part of Telstra’s defence.
On 28 November 1995, six months after my arbitration ended, I received Telstra’s TF200 EXICOM report. This report confirms Telstra carried out two separate investigations of my EXICOM TF200 telephone, two weeks apart and the second test report, dated between 24 and 26 May 1994, proved that the first one, the report provided to the arbitrator, was not an accurate account of the testing process at all, but a total fabrication. Photos and graphs by Telstra laboratory staff proved that wet beer introduced into the TF200 phone dried out entirely in 48 hours. As mentioned above, Telstra collected my phone from my business on 27 April 1994, but it was not tested until 10 May – a gap of 14 days. Various pages (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5) confirm that, even though Telstra knew its second investigation proved the first arbitration report, dated between 10 and 12 May 1994, was more than fundamentally flawed, it still submitted the first flawed report to the arbitrator as Telstra’s factual findings.
The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the phone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?
Another disturbing side to this tapering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration, Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.
It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This wicked deed and the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration are a testament that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond, by supplying vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both occasions during my arbitration.
The other twist to this part of my story is, how could I have spilt beer into my telephone, as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire? I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fire buddies had I been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to put up with from Telstra as we battled for a reliable phone service.
When I provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood s forensic documents specialist, who advised he would test the collected TF200 and inspect Telstra's laboratory working notes to see how Telstra came up with their findings regarding my drinking habits had caused my phone faults and not the EXICOM TF200 both the arbitrator and arbitration special counsel refused my request to have Telstra's arbitration defence investigated on the grounds fraud had played a significant part in the preparation of the TF200 report.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
